il Duce McTarkin Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 7 minutes ago, stevie said: I’d love heads to roll for this but they’ll circle the wagons to make sure no blood is spilt. None of their own, at any rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 21 minutes ago, stevie said: The blame for this entire fiasco lies fairly and squarely with all politicians from all parties since this started.The scrambling to sort it out 20 years too late is ****ing disgraceful and just about sums up our political elite for the last 2 decades.Self serving sanctimonious sponging b’stards. I’d love heads to roll for this but they’ll circle the wagons to make sure no blood is spilt. Any complicit in this should be jailed and liable for damages to those they affected. It won't though because they will get it buried by their pals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 What really nails it for me is anyone who peddled the “your the only one having issues” nonsense,particularly those involved in serving fines or court prosecution's.Every single one of them should be held to account and guys like Ed Davey (I wish I’d know what was happening 😡) the lying cow Paula Venells and hundreds of less famous Co conspirator's, should at the very least have their day being scrutinised in front of the cameras. 20 ****ing years this has been going on,I’ve a friend that’s went/going through this and it is absolutely incredible that it’s still not been resolved and the current political clamour makes me *** sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 The Panorama programme is back on iplayer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychedelicropcircle Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 No seen the Programme through but there’s a gadge that’s the double of a tax dodging chancellor in the programme 😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Striker Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 This is the Panorama program from 2015. Interviews with Jo Hamilton, the Welsh chap, and James Arbuthnott. Also the Fujitsu whistleblower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That thing you do Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Ive just listened to Stephen Bradshaws testimony. Holy moly. Zero accounability or remorse and practices that could make you weep. Absolute disgrace of a man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Another day, another revelation of misdeeds and cover-ups. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67884743 Post Office lied and threatened BBC over Horizon whistleblower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 15 hours ago, Lone Striker said: Typical politician - if there's a popular bandwagon in sight, jump on it. Pretty sure Alan Bates would decline such an offer in the strongest terms. He comes across as a man of old-fashioned honesty and integrity - attributes that very few politicians seem to have. The pair appeared on This Morning today, where they were interviewed by Josie Gibsonand Craig Doyle, about the Post Office scandal and how the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office. During a recent interview over the weekend, Alan Bates said: "If Richard Branson is reading this, I’d love a holiday," and today, Josie revealed he had been in touch with a personal reply. Maybe he would take the Knighthood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 3 hours ago, redjambo said: Another day, another revelation of misdeeds and cover-ups. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67884743 Post Office lied and threatened BBC over Horizon whistleblower It's no bad thing for all revelations to get maximum coverage but there's something of a reek about the BBC suddenly becoming champions for accountability, transparency, truth, morality, uncovering cover-ups and general good conduct that serves people well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Potter Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 15 hours ago, frankblack said: Any complicit in this should be jailed and liable for damages to those they affected. It won't though because they will get it buried by their pals. Its disgusting that this whole sordid affair has happened, worst part was they were telling victims they were the only ones with Horizon problems, total lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 A Post Office lawyer up today. Not expecting an awful lot of honesty and good faith out of that then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Man, that scouse prick yesterday sounded like a right thick *****. Wouldn’t trust him to put your wheelie bin out. Hope he ends up in jail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 3 hours ago, That thing you do said: Ive just listened to Stephen Bradshaws testimony. Holy moly. Zero accounability or remorse and practices that could make you weep. Absolute disgrace of a man. I know nothing about the man, other than he is/was an investigator for the Post Office. However, having seen his testimony I can only assume he is ex-police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 6 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said: I know nothing about the man, other than he is/was an investigator for the Post Office. However, having seen his testimony I can only assume he is ex-police. 45 years service in the Post Office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 21 minutes ago, Victorian said: 45 years service in the Post Office. I'm sure he would have made Chief Superintendent if he had joined the police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 2 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said: I'm sure he would have made Chief Superintendent if he had joined the police. He might have attracted the interest of the Met. They're looking to up the calibre of senior officers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionDJambo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 20 minutes ago, Victorian said: 45 years service in the Post Office. With special powers and methods of investigation that, on yesterday's evidence, were wholly inappropriate in a democratic country with a proper justice system. I know it was dramatized, but the way they were seen arriving and screeching to a halt in 2 or 3 black cars outside those Post Offices, was a clear attempt to intimidate and bully before they had even uttered a question. Bradshaw came over as the worst kind of man you could have the misfortune to cross paths with. Totally remorseless and he gave me the impression that he would go out and do the same again tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 3 minutes ago, Victorian said: He might have attracted the interest of the Met. They're looking to up the calibre of senior officers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 30 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said: Totally remorseless and he gave me the impression that he would go out and do the same again tomorrow. There are some currently in senior positions within POL who still believe that the postmasters were guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 32 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said: With special powers and methods of investigation that, on yesterday's evidence, were wholly inappropriate in a democratic country with a proper justice system. I know it was dramatized, but the way they were seen arriving and screeching to a halt in 2 or 3 black cars outside those Post Offices, was a clear attempt to intimidate and bully before they had even uttered a question. Bradshaw came over as the worst kind of man you could have the misfortune to cross paths with. Totally remorseless and he gave me the impression that he would go out and do the same again tomorrow. That's the nature of the beast, which was the body of PO Investigators. Trained in the style of 70s cop shows, with good cop, bad cop interview routines. "We know you did it", "What have you done with the money?" "You're going to prison if you don't 'fess up" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
periodictabledancer Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 16 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: There are some currently in senior positions within POL who still believe that the postmasters were guilty. That vile , stupid female investigator that was before the enquiry a few weeks ago (the one that didn't even recognise her own witness statement) really took the biscuit : slandered/libelled an innocent postmistress & her husband in full public view and showed not a thread of remorse or understanding for what she'd done. It's like a cult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 53 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said: With special powers and methods of investigation that, on yesterday's evidence, were wholly inappropriate in a democratic country with a proper justice system. I know it was dramatized, but the way they were seen arriving and screeching to a halt in 2 or 3 black cars outside those Post Offices, was a clear attempt to intimidate and bully before they had even uttered a question. Bradshaw came over as the worst kind of man you could have the misfortune to cross paths with. Totally remorseless and he gave me the impression that he would go out and do the same again tomorrow. Reminds me when I worked n branch banking in the late 70s. Inspectors knocked on the door late afternoon and swooped in on you by surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
periodictabledancer Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 (edited) Dimmer than a 40watt light bulb. Morons like this were running around "inevstigation" criminal activity. it's put to him that he DID know there was Horizon issues because he & his dept was inevestigating postmasters who were reporting thousands of issues to the help desk. One woman alone - whom he helped jail - made 116 complaints. he says no because his employers never told him there was a problem and anyway, he's not an "expert" on Horizon. 🤦♂️ Here's the excruciating end to his "testimony" yesterday. NB Listen to what he says from 8.10 onwards : it's shameful. Edited January 12 by periodictabledancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 8 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said: Dimmer than a 40watt light bulb. Morons like this were running around "inevstigation" criminal activity. it's put to him that he DID know there was Horizon issues because he & his dept was inevestigating postmasters who were reporting thousands of issues to the help desk. One woman alone - whom he helped jail - made 116 complaints. he says no because his employers never told him there was a problem and anyway, he's not an "expert" on Horizon. 🤦♂️ Here's the excruciating end to his "testimony" yesterday. NB Listen to what he says from 8.10 onwards : it's shameful. At one point he tried to justify the non-disclosure of information to a defence agent on the grounds of it being in the public interest to discover what had happened to deposits made by customers. It was put to him that he might be overlooking another public interest (the avoidance of a miscarriage of justice). He then said "I'm not the prosecuting authority". Well aye, naw. Therefore you have no business in deciding what is in the public interest, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
periodictabledancer Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67884743 By Andrew Head and Tim Robinson Panorama for BBC News The Post Office threatened and lied to the BBC in a failed effort to suppress key evidence that helped clear postmasters in the Horizon scandal. Senior managers tried to smear postmasters before Panorama broadcast an interview in 2015 with a Fujitsu whistleblower. Former insider Richard Roll revealed accounts on the Horizon computer system could be secretly altered. The Post Office declined to comment while the public inquiry is ongoing. Mr Roll would go on to play a crucial part in a 2019 High Court case which ruled that bugs could cause errors in the Post Office computer system intended to keep track of transactions in local branches. Between 1999 and 2015, 700 sub-postmasters and postmistresses - self-employed people who run Post Office branches - were prosecuted for offences such as theft, fraud and false accounting, with some going to prison and others even taking their own lives. The BBC can reveal that in the period leading up to the broadcast of Trouble at the Post Office, the 2015 Panorama programme featuring the whistleblower testimony: Experts interviewed by the BBC were sent intimidating letters by Post Office lawyers about their participation in the programme Senior Post Office managers briefed the BBC that neither their staff nor Fujitsu - the company which built and maintained the Horizon system - could remotely access sub-postmasters' accounts, even though Post Office directors had been warned four years earlier that such remote access was possible Lawyers for the Post Office sent letters threatening to sue Panorama and the company's public relations boss Mark Davies escalated complaints to ever more senior BBC managers The Post Office's false claims did not stop the programme, but they did cause the BBC to delay the broadcast by several weeks. Documents submitted to the ongoing public inquiry reveal how that small victory was celebrated by Post Office senior management. Then-chief executive Paula Vennells congratulated Mark Davies and his PR team on their "extensive work". This was just the latest in a long line of lobbying, misinformation and outright lies that had faced a small number of BBC journalists trying to uncover the truth about the Post Office scandal. It began in 2011, when then-BBC regional reporter Nick Wallis first interviewed Jo Hamilton, played by Monica Dolan in the ITV drama Mr Bates v The Post Office. She told him how the Horizon computer system had made money seem to vanish from the tills at her branch in Hampshire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
periodictabledancer Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 (edited) What ssems to have been unearthed at the inquiry today is that POL disclosure statements* to the High Court, the Court of Appeal & the Inquiry itself are "inaccurate & misleading". Not sure if this is as bad as it sounds as I'm having trouble following it today. * This is to do with the ongoing appearance of reams of docs POL never found but then magically did at opportune moments (for POL) during the inquiry. As far as I can make out , POL have/had no clue what they were taking about when it came to disclosing what they (didn't) have and the grounds for it. They appear to not understand what happened to their own email systems over the years and where those archives are. It's staggering. Edited January 12 by periodictabledancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 minute ago, periodictabledancer said: What ssems to have been unearthed at the inquiry today is that POL disclosure statements* to the High Court, the Court of Appeal & the Inquiry itself are "inaccurate & misleading". Not sure if this is as bad as it sounds as I'm having trouble following it today. * This is to do with the ongoing appearance of reams of docs POL never found that but then magically did at opportune moments (for POL) during the inquiry. As far as I can make out , POL have/had no clue what they were taking about when it came to disclosing what they (didn't) have and the grounds for it. They appear to not understand what happened to their own email systems over the years and where those archives are. It's staggering. They lied to Parliament, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 The evidence clearly showing they knew there were problems with Horizon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 55 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said: Dimmer than a 40watt light bulb. Morons like this were running around "inevstigation" criminal activity. it's put to him that he DID know there was Horizon issues because he & his dept was inevestigating postmasters who were reporting thousands of issues to the help desk. One woman alone - whom he helped jail - made 116 complaints. he says no because his employers never told him there was a problem and anyway, he's not an "expert" on Horizon. 🤦♂️ Here's the excruciating end to his "testimony" yesterday. NB Listen to what he says from 8.10 onwards : it's shameful. what an absolute embarrassment that jobsworth is. My god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 2 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said: I know nothing about the man, other than he is/was an investigator for the Post Office. However, having seen his testimony I can only assume he is ex-police. The more we learn about this, it is clear they all thought they were above the law............no they thought they WERE the law. This is why the post office has to be stripped of it's power to prosecute, it simply can not be trusted anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 On 09/01/2024 at 18:30, periodictabledancer said: The C of E refused numerous requests for Vennells to be stripped of her robes : now we know why and it is mind boggling. Unbelievable. It's now come to light that former Post Office CEO, Paula Vessells, who was ordained into the Church of England in 2005, was encouraged in 2017 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to apply for the job of Bishop of London. She made the shortlist but didn't get the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 26 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said: What ssems to have been unearthed at the inquiry today is that POL disclosure statements* to the High Court, the Court of Appeal & the Inquiry itself are "inaccurate & misleading". Not sure if this is as bad as it sounds as I'm having trouble following it today. * This is to do with the ongoing appearance of reams of docs POL never found but then magically did at opportune moments (for POL) during the inquiry. As far as I can make out , POL have/had no clue what they were taking about when it came to disclosing what they (didn't) have and the grounds for it. They appear to not understand what happened to their own email systems over the years and where those archives are. It's staggering. Chris Jackson is a partner in the legal firm that POL has engaged to enable it to satisfy the disclosure needs of the inquiry (this is the 2nd firm that has been engaged). They have found various failings in meeting previous disclosure requests and an apparent failure of POL to understand its own mail systems and archives that have been used over the review period. It seems that the main way of identifying documents in the various repositories is by search terms, e.g. Bradshaw, Vennells, Horizon, Court, Jenkins etc. However that has thrown up too many results, 400,000 so far, of which just over 11,000 were deemed relevant and passed to the inquiry. POL now wishes to limit the searches so that a higher proportion of the documents are relevant. The risk from the inquiry's viewpoint is that some important documents will not be identified. The exercise currently appears to be under stress due to time constraints of the witness timetables, so efforts are being made to focus on the upcoming witnesses so that the inquiry remains on track. I don't know what influence is being brought to bear from POL officers, but I believe that POL continues to obfuscate and delay all attempts to get the data. It may be possible to force POL to hand over everything and let the inquiry determine what is relevant (as happened in the Covid inquiry and powers confirmed by the Supreme Court). That would then put the costs of the inquiry up and perhaps delay matters further. Edited January 12 by Footballfirst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 I know it’s vindictive but I’m desperate to see these scum do time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Striker Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 15 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: Chris Jackson is a partner in the legal firm that POL has engaged to enable it to satisfy the disclosure needs of the inquiry (this is the 2nd firm that has been engaged). They have found various failings in meeting previous disclosure requests and an apparent failure of POL to understand its own mail systems and archives that have been used over the review period. It seems that the main way of identifying documents in the various repositories is by search terms, e.g. Bradshaw, Vennells, Horizon, Court, Jenkins etc. However that has thrown up too many results, 400,000 so far, of which just over 11,000 were deemed relevant and passed to the inquiry. POL now wishes to limit the searches so that a higher proportion of the documents are relevant. The risk from the inquiry's viewpoint is that some important documents will not be identified. The exercise currently appears to be under stress due to time constraints of the witness timetables, so efforts are being made to focus on the upcoming witnesses so that the inquiry remains on track. I don't know what influence is being brought to bear from POL officers, but I believe that POL continues to obfuscate and delay all attempts to get the data. It may be possible to force POL to hand over everything and let the inquiry determine what is relevant (as happened in the Covid inquiry and powers confirmed by the Supreme Court). That would then put the costs of the inquiry up and perhaps delay matters further. Interesting. It adds to the growing impression that the PO board & senior management is embarrassingly deficient in IT awareness, never mind expertise - which in turn adds to the growing impression that Fujitsu took full advantage of that, and peddled all sorts of lies about Horizon to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joondalupjambo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Don't shout at me but there won't there be some sub postmasters guilty of fraud within the same timeframe of the innocents? How do the judiciary / police play that out? Will it just be a case of admonishing everyone and taking the hit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 5 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said: Don't shout at me but there won't there be some sub postmasters guilty of fraud within the same timeframe of the innocents? How do the judiciary / police play that out? Will it just be a case of admonishing everyone and taking the hit? Everyone will have to sign a declaration that they are innocent. That's their solution to that question. Edited January 12 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 10 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said: Don't shout at me but there won't there be some sub postmasters guilty of fraud within the same timeframe of the innocents? How do the judiciary / police play that out? Will it just be a case of admonishing everyone and taking the hit? From UK legal usage: In criminal law, Blackstone's ratio (also known as Blackstone's formulation) is the idea that: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s. Also adopted by the Americans Benjamin Franklin stated it as: "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joondalupjambo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said: Everyone will have to sign a declaration that they are innocent. That's their solution to that question. Ah that puts a bit of pressure on the guilty I suppose. If they sign it, take the chance no further investigation then bingo. Will in interesting to see out of how many guilty cases there are how many come clean on the guilty side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joondalupjambo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Footballfirst said: From UK legal usage: In criminal law, Blackstone's ratio (also known as Blackstone's formulation) is the idea that: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s. Also adopted by the Americans Benjamin Franklin stated it as: "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" Interesting stuff 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Striker Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 55 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said: Ah that puts a bit of pressure on the guilty I suppose. If they sign it, take the chance no further investigation then bingo. Will in interesting to see out of how many guilty cases there are how many come clean on the guilty side. Any S-PM who actually did steal money and was convicted .... and then signs the document declaring he didn't, will also be eligible for the compensation (so long as he isn't rumbled). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 22 minutes ago, Lone Striker said: Any S-PM who actually did steal money and was convicted .... and then signs the document declaring he didn't, will also be eligible for the compensation (so long as he isn't rumbled). Fujitsu would need to prove within reasonable doubt that the the system worked and data wasn't retrospectively edited by them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Just a small detail with watching the ITV documentary. Nadhim Zahawi MP who plays himself in the drama did talk aggressively to Paula Vennels at the Parliament meeting. Actually more so in real life so it wasn't exaggerated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
periodictabledancer Posted January 12 Author Share Posted January 12 5 hours ago, Footballfirst said: Chris Jackson is a partner in the legal firm that POL has engaged to enable it to satisfy the disclosure needs of the inquiry (this is the 2nd firm that has been engaged). They have found various failings in meeting previous disclosure requests and an apparent failure of POL to understand its own mail systems and archives that have been used over the review period. It seems that the main way of identifying documents in the various repositories is by search terms, e.g. Bradshaw, Vennells, Horizon, Court, Jenkins etc. However that has thrown up too many results, 400,000 so far, of which just over 11,000 were deemed relevant and passed to the inquiry. POL now wishes to limit the searches so that a higher proportion of the documents are relevant. The risk from the inquiry's viewpoint is that some important documents will not be identified. The exercise currently appears to be under stress due to time constraints of the witness timetables, so efforts are being made to focus on the upcoming witnesses so that the inquiry remains on track. I don't know what influence is being brought to bear from POL officers, but I believe that POL continues to obfuscate and delay all attempts to get the data. It may be possible to force POL to hand over everything and let the inquiry determine what is relevant (as happened in the Covid inquiry and powers confirmed by the Supreme Court). That would then put the costs of the inquiry up and perhaps delay matters further. Thanks for filling in somes gaps, FF. Re your point "POL continues to obfuscate and delay all attempts to get the data." It was disclosed at the enquiry a couple of months ago that POL engage a third party to do all the document searches , who in turn work with another party. These two parties have been in dispute for some time about the search criteria to be applied - POL knew and did nothing. POL are trying to claim they have no part in the document searches (they appear to do literally nothing to manage the two warring parties they pay very handsomely) in order they cannot be accused of influencing/delaying matters (POL lawyers said this with a straight face) . You couldn't make it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobboM Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 51 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: Just a small detail with watching the ITV documentary. Nadhim Zahawi MP who plays himself in the drama did talk aggressively to Paula Vennels at the Parliament meeting. Actually more so in real life so it wasn't exaggerated. True. Pity they didn't include his statement when he said "I may be a lying, tax dodging ***** but youse ****ers take the ****ing biscuit!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 5 minutes ago, RobboM said: True. Pity they didn't include his statement when he said "I may be a lying, tax dodging ***** but youse ****ers take the ****ing biscuit!" Multi tasking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF11JamTart Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 I've finally got round to reading Nick Wallis' book. It's been sitting on the shelf for a year or so. Very very good. And very readable. Recommended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 12 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said: I know nothing about the man, other than he is/was an investigator for the Post Office. However, having seen his testimony I can only assume he is ex-police. Think he had a 3 week course in how to to investigate, seriously. He's been outed by a few as an old style, he would have thrown a few punches to get a confession if allowed. Out and out prick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 5 hours ago, Mikey1874 said: Just a small detail with watching the ITV documentary. Nadhim Zahawi MP who plays himself in the drama did talk aggressively to Paula Vennels at the Parliament meeting. Actually more so in real life so it wasn't exaggerated. I was wondering if that had been edited in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.